Charlottesville

Listening to NPR this morning confirmed what I already knew. Charlottesville is being turned into another nail in President Trump’s coffin.

NPR had no interest whatsoever in reporting the actual facts about what had occurred in Charlottesville. The several “interviews” with the like-minded were orchestrated to produce the desired propaganda result: It was all Trump’s fault.

It was Trump’s fault for many reasons. He had stirred up White Supremacists and Nazis by appealing during the presidential election campaign to their supremacist views with his slogan “America first.”

Of course, what Trump means by “America first,” is precisely what the voters understood him to mean—the interest of the broad American public should come before trade deals that serve the interests of other counries and the narrow profit interests of global corporations. However, the NPR propagandists put words in Trump’s mouth and twisted the meaning of the slogan to be “White America Comes First.”

In other words, “America first” according to NPR is code language to white supremacists to take advantage of the electoral college and elect a leader over the popular vote of the heavy population densities in the narrow geographical areas that comprise the northeast and west coasts, the centers of moral rot. Thus, Trump was the candidate of white supremacists and, thereby, illegitimate.

NPR next conveyed the message that Trump proved he was the Nazis’ candidate when he criticized both sides for the trouble in Charlottesville. NPR used its orchestrated interviews to place all blame for violence on the group that had a permit for their rally. According to NPR, the group that had no permit and formed in order to protest the rally consisted entirely of white hats defending America from free speech from alleged Nazis and racists.

There is no doubt that a rally of what is called the “alt-right” will pull into itself all sorts of extremists and that the cause of the rally, apparently defending a statue of Robert E. Lee from demolition or perhaps simply gaining attention for the organizers, was done harm by the young, apparently unbalanced, man who drove a car into counter-marchers, after the permitted rally had ended. The nonsensical element of this act has convinced some Americans that the entire scene was an orchestration by the deep state as a weapon against Trump and civil liberty.

Charlottesville has many aspects that are ignored by NPR and the rest of the presstitutes. For example, how does the Bush/Cheney/Obama/neoconservative assertion that Americans are the “exceptional people” whose country is the “indispensable country” differ from Trump’s proclamation of “America first”? No one among the liberal/progressive/left was disturbed when Obama proclaimed to the world that Americans are the exceptional, indispensable people. Doesn’t Obama use much clearer language that puts America first? If Americans are exceptional, everyone else is unexceptional. If Americans are indispensable, everyone else is dispensable.

What is the difference? One difference is that Obama was elected by the good people, the non-racist, non-misogynist, non-white-supremacist people, and Trump was elected by “the deplorables,” to use Hillary’s term. Little wonder she lost, having dismissed everyone between the two coasts as “deplorables.” But she didn’t lose, right? Putin and Trump conspired to steal the election from her. Trump is illegitimate and therefore must be driven out of office. He is doubly illegitimate because white heterosexual males elected him. This bogus charge despite the fact that Hillary got 2 million less votes from women than did Obama. Either the 2 million women didn’t vote or they voted for Trump.

The other difference is that Trump’s use of “America first” refers to the loss of millions of American middle class jobs and tax base for former manufacturing cities and states, whereas the Bush/Cheney/Obama/neoconservative use of “exceptional, indispensable America” refers to Washington’s right to bomb other peoples into the stone age for not complying with Washington’s orders.

The campaign to drive Trump out of office has been going on 24/7 since Trump confounded the pundits and won the election. For the liberal/progressive/left Trump is the enemy against whom they are conducting war, and as in war, truth is crowded out by propaganda. The liberal/progressive/left gets away with this abuse of news reporting because Trump’s intent to reduce tensions with Russia is seen as threats to the income and power of the military/security complex and the hegemonic ideology of the neoconservatives. Powerful material interests, ideology, and media together comprise a very strong force against which a mere president hasn’t a chance.

Few Americans understand the fundamental transformation of their politics and society since the 1960s when the Civil Rights Act was stood on its head by EEOC compliance chief Alfred W. Bloomrosen. The Civil Rights Act explicitly prohibited racial and gender quotas as methods to combat “discrimination,” which was mainly a product of history rather than of the motivations of white males. But it is difficult to make history a villain, and social engineering benefits from having a villain to overcome. Thus was the foundation of Identity Politics laid.

The initial stage of the new politics was that quotas established privilege for “preferred minorities,” and preference began prevailing over merit. Over the decades white males have slowly but surely experienced discrimination in university admissions, hiring, promotions, university appointments, and in their ability to exercise free speech. Remember, only a few days ago a senior male engineer at Google was fired because he expressed a truthful fact—men and women have different traits—that is unacceptable to feminists.

Perhaps somewhere at some time a woman or a black has been fired for saying something unacceptable to a white male, but I know of no such case. Indeed, it is common parlance that white heterosexual males are racists, sexists, and homophobic. This is the accepted language of Identity Politics. Few of us are brave enough to challenge it.

The liberal/progressive/left along with the media has abandoned the working class for Identity Politics. Identity Politics teaches that women, blacks, and homosexuals are all victims of white heterosexual males who are characterized as the victimizer class, that is, those who victimize others. The doctrine delegitimizes white heterosexual males in the same way that Nazi doctrine delegitimizes Jews and communist doctrine delegitimizes capitalists. There is no difference.

Initially, white males, such as the University of Virginia history professor on NPR today who obligingly demonized the white males who do not accept their second class status, survive by mouthing Identity Politics and crawling on their knees. But this is a temporary respite. For Identity Politics the only acceptable white heterosexual males are those who admit their gender and sexual preference guilt and accept their punishment for being the victimizers of women, blacks, and homosexuals.

In 1995 in our book, The New Color Line, How Quotas and Privilege Destroy Democracy, Larry Stratton and I describe how one EEOC bureaucrat by ignoring the statutory language of the Civil Rights Act, legislation the intent of which was to enforce equality before the law, reintroduced legalized discrimination into US law, thus beginning the process of delegitimizing the white male. Today some would turn their backs on this fact, not because it is invalid but because it is politically incorrect. When our book was published 22 years ago, the major media endorsed our argument:

“A forceful and convincing case . . . vividly dramatic.” — New York Times Book Review

“There are important lessons to learn . . . not least how good intentions can go badly awry.” — The Wall Street Journal

“Roberts and Stratton make a strong case that the civil rights legislation of the 1960s has been distorted beyond recognition.” — The Washington Post

The consequence of quotas wasn’t obvious at first, and there were claims that the quotas were temporary, but today the consequence is obvious. Heterosexual white males are deplorables. Today on NPR one male said that the views of white males who defend both themselves and dead white males from attacks should not be allowed a voice in American politics.

The liberal/progressive/left asserts that everyone knows that Robert E. Lee was an evil racist who fought for slavery and everyone who wants to protect his statue is obviously the same. Such people deserve no voice, no vote. They must be excluded from public discussion.

Imagine saying this about any other group, especially women, blacks, and homosexuals. How is it possible for the liberal/progressive/left to really believe that they are oppressed by powerful white male heterosexuals when they can demonize white males at will and prevent any backtalk?

If white males are so powerful, how can they be so easily fired by feminist thought control czars for “expressing harmful gender stereotypes.” Harmful to who? How harmful is getting fired?

As anti-white male propaganda is apparently the only mental activity of which the liberal/progressive/left is capable, Faith Goldy and Stefan Molyneux are probably correct that America, broken into pieces by Identity Politics, is heading into civil war.

I wonder which side will control the nukes and bio-chemical weapons.

If the white heterosexual males lose, I wonder who will protect the white women. Are they destined for the same rape and butchery as befell German women from the Russians and Americans once the Wehrmacht surrendered?

Of course, this is an impermissible question.

The liberal/progressive/left are incapable of understanding that by demonizing white heterosexual males they are demonizing all whites and, thereby, themselves.

They should go ask the liberal whites in Rhodesia how well they are faring in Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe. They should ask South African whites how secure they believe themselves to be now that they have turned over power and a second black political party as risen, forcing political competition between black politicians into which black party hates whites the most.

These also are impermissible questions.

Identity Politics always leads to violence, and Americans will not be spared.

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to get more info on formatting

(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.

(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.

(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:

a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more quickly.

and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in Name of your link

(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs:&nbsp;You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated.The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will look like before you send it.

(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.

Comment

Name:

E-mail:

134 Comments

NPR radio is Soros funded. So of course it is going to follow the Soros script.
Anyone who has read of the confected and co-opted protests in th early stages of the eventual overthrow of the governments of Libya, Syria, Tunisia, Egypt /( Arab spring) and Ukraine can easily recognise the Soros template in use.
The manipulation of the events at Charlotteville are Soros civil disturbance 101.
Having watched the documentary Crimea – Long Way Home, I learnt how paid operatives work within the crowd.
Therefore I viewing photos and video of Charlotteville, I noted the same tactics.
I saw banners with the Soros fist. Soros groups such as BLM and a number of people wearing distinctive lime or light green caps. These were people located within the crowd.
But I saw a pic of the aftermath – when the “action” of the car in the crowd was over.
These green caps were all gathered together with someone wearing a Soros t-shirt.
“Gotcha”.
Distruot J20 was Soros. Charlotteville was Soros.
The plan is to prise Trump away from his base.
He is already isolated politically, surrounded by placed puppets within the very core of his admin.
Once the 60 million supporters can be fractured and neutered. Then they can safely move against him.
A Soros style color revolution is in play in the USA.

The “the Friends of Israel” had nothing to do with Charlottesville. The deaths of the 2 police officers in a helicopter cannot be pinned on any of the political demonstrators in Charlottesville.

I don’t know about Lee being a hero to Jews but it certainly is true that Judah P. Benjamin was Jewish and was a highly respected figure in the confederacy. It’s also true the Jews controlled the slave trade and much of the shipping industry (as cited in The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews and by the late professor Tony Martin, but one must not seak of such things because Jews are still regarded as a victim class in America and to criticize them collectively is seen as to invite collective persecution of Jews as was done in the Holocaust and by Christians in the many pogroms throughout history.

The Christian affinity for Jews is only a recent phenomenon borne out guilt for the many pogroms and the irrational hatred and persecution of Jews by Christians ever since the Book of Matthew was written.

Well said, but it’s even worse. As the trans-Atlantic slave trade/exploitation and Western imperialism, the (Zionist) Hitler Project, and the brutal persecution/terrorization of non-Zionist (and civilized or assimilated) Jews was also entirely organized by Zionist/Satanist Pharisaic Talmudism (the banksters and gangsters’ mafia).

Of course everything is (and not exactly coincidently) falsely blamed on the whiteys, exactly like the 9/11 false flag, and Zionist ‘Islamic’ (false flag) terrorism, is blamed on Muslims. They pretty much control and corrupted the entire Western system since the 17th century. Rehmat seems to very much fall for their (completely inversed) reality and Orwellian lies. See e.g. Henry Makow’s (Jewish, and very good) site about that.

The events that took place last week in Charlottesville are perhaps one of the most magisterially PSYOPs carried out by the government in recent years, plans that are focused to change the current system and the consolidation of more power too. Useful idiots and supporters from both sides in the ongoing dispute (“right” vs. “left” in all of its forms, “white nationalists” vs. “antifa”, KKK vs. BLM, etc) cannot envision that intermittent facilities are anxiously waiting for all of them as soon as Martial Law is enacted in the United States.

Kim Jong-un is surely enjoying this reality-show while making final adjustments to his nuclear toys.

The “blame the Jews” crowd is every bit as deplorable as the Nazis and Confederates. Oh wait, you are, in fact, the same people.

I am not sure why it is so hard for people to accept that evil is randomly distributed and part of the human condition (something that used to be recognized by all societies and religions). Are you going to honestly argue that no other people were ever “banksters” and “gangsters” besides the Jews? I totally missed that in history class.

@The Christian affinity for Jews is only a recent phenomenon borne out guilt for the many pogroms and the irrational hatred and persecution of Jews by Christians ever since the Book of Matthew was written.

No any ‘guilt’ towards the Jews begins with Martin Luther and the Protestant movement which combined with rejection and hatred of the Holy Catholic Church leading to the formation of Protestant/Masonic America and even culminating in Luther’s own Germany and Hitler’s ideology. A combination of holocaust guilt, Zionist effort, and numerous heretical Protestant sects trying to explain away Catholicism and the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass and Apostolic succession, had to pin their hopes on the revival of a Jewish State of Israel and the rebuilding of the Temple and reinstitution of the Mosiac sacrificial system in order to make sense of Biblical prophecies. All which were spelt out through unbroken tradition that the 12 Apostles replaced the 12 tribes, the Levitical priesthood replaced by that of Melchizedek and bread/wine offerings that become the Flesh and Blood of Christ, the Lamb of God and Manna from Heaven which He commanded all to eat if they wanted to be saved. The Church was therefore the new Israel, Christ it’s new King forever, Peter it’s new prime administrator to oversee the kingdom’s household, a kingdom in this world and yet not of this world.

But Protestantism rejected this and combined with German guilt borne from Luther’s well documented anti Semitism has naturally led to the uncritical Evangelical support of Israel and against it’s State enemies, when really it is the ideological enemies of the Church as a whole that are correctly identified as ‘Israel’s (The Church’s) enemies. These are not constrained to any particular country or geography and there are no ‘walls’ separating the wheat from the chaff, so this is therefore not a war that can be won by indiscriminate bombing or boots on the ground.

Yes Uncle Bob, with the difference that in Ukraine, as in ex-Yugoslavia, they used groups of the extreme right to destabilise the majority rule/ central power / of the country, while in the US it appears to be groups of the extreme left.

In any case, it seems that those who wish to rule over us have no problem in recruiting willing executioners- ideological extremists filled with envy and imaginary grievances- in order to execute their diabolical plan.

As you say it’s an irreversible path… Once the bloodshed begins, how do you recreate the same country/same society again? How do you trust those who sided with the enemy?

I think Europeans can look at the US today as their future. They follow the same insane policy as the US. And will share that disaster. Hopefully Russia can avoid it but I don’t know. When you have a nation state,it is a nation state.When you deliberately turn it into a massively diverse nationalities state. You get constant fighting for power among the alien groups. The Europeans did that to themselves. So did the US. But in our defense.We never were a nation state on the European level. So the danger wasn’t as clear to us. The Europeans don’t have that defense. They saw/see what happened to the US.And still “jump off the cliff,smiling”.

Lots of people do, and lots of people are learning, and many more are not.

Outward vision can more easily be 20/20 than inward vision, which is more stubbornly clouded.

People have been “played” for a very long time (and definitely, back to the US Civil War……LOL…..”Northern Agression”…..it was British Empire aggression!…and the CSA were “played”…pure and simple….) by a global elite that is anti-human.

PCR is much better at peering outward at the world than most Americans who have been in government, but not so good at peering inward into himself, and his “Reaganomics” resume. This is his obvious weakness, which leads to him giving some poor, impatient advice to Russia and why Putin is wise to let him fester in his frustrations and impatience, and decide his own course.

What’s missing in the analysis of Charlottesville, so far, is the obvious gang/counter-gang nature of the whole set-up in the immediate wake of the institutional and media collapse of the Russia-Gate narrative, due to the VIPS forensic proof that it was a leak, not a hack.

Did you miss the timing because you pessimistically assumed the Russia-gate narrative is so strong that the 94% of the American people that don’t believe it will necessarily always and forever be mind-controlled into submission by it??

Wake up! That narrative is fatally damaged by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and their forensic proof has been covered in the last few days by The Nation, Newsmax, NY Post and Washington Times. Not exactly a “black-out”!

So: Look at the timing!

Charlottesville is the new gang/counter-gang Trumpo Trap and it is stupid to choose sides in a big mess. Soros and the British and their globalist minions want to sucker Trump and you and everyone else into picking sides in a rigged game that they run. On both “left” AND “right”.

Anonymous is right. The semi-totalitarian fake leftist/liberal banksters & gangsters’ tyranny, which owns all leverage of power, is simply after the last freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly, using their violent ‘Antifa’ thugs.
Paul Craig Roberts and Ron Paul are icons of freedom of speech (mostly damn right at that).

Just so you know, vot tak, I am from the Deep South and to this day amongst ourselves we do call the altercation The War of Northern Aggression. The war was not over slavery, it was over state’s rights, in other words a fundamental difference of opinion of the role of the Federal Government and State Governments in regards to internal and external policies, duties and responsibilities.

It is very true that The South lost the war and suffered for 100 years after the war from that loss. The South did not really recover until the 1950’s and later and as a result of this continuing federal pressure against the southern states in many ways the culture of the south did not ‘evolve’ as the northern and mid west cultures did. In the big cities there were large areas where the old cultures were extant and once out of the built up areas you could step back 50 and 60 years with ease.

In my opinion this mess in Charlottesville, which even 35 years ago was Deep South, is an attempt to remove the last vestiges of the old culture and mannerisms, in other words another assault on American Culture as it was, not as the liberals want it to be. Part of this assault is the attacks on the monuments and memorials to the Confederacy which are a deep part of Southern Culture. In my opinion the liberals and neocons know that this part of the country, the Deep South, is where the resistance to their vision of the future lies and they will move heaven and earth to destroy the last vestiges of what America was, be that ‘was’ North, South, or Central.

The problem with this agenda is The South is traditionally the bedrock of the American Armed Forces since even before the War of Northern Aggression. So what to do? Are the neocons trying to start a civil war? Are they being just as stupid inside US as with US foreign policy? What do you think is going to happen when the graveyards in Southern cities, towns and villages are visited in the night and the small memorials and gravestones of the fallen from the war are desecrated with the excuse that those buried there were all racist and separatists? I know what is going to happen and it won’t be pretty, and these ‘happenings’ will be the excuse for more federal control over life and culture than The Feds already have. This will result in more incidents as local culture is threatened and more repressions and I can guaranty you the the fight will be on.

Sometimes I think the old ways were better regardless of how fogged in memory they are of the better times, the more cultured times when all was good and peaceful. So be it, those days are long gone, living only in the memories of those of us who knew them. In a way I pity those still in US, I pity you for what is coming because there’s not enough of you to stop it now nor were there enough of you five years ago to stop it when you could.

Secession was due to (partly) states’ rights. That was a southern act.

The actual war was Abraham Lincoln’s doing, however. The reason for that war was given by Lincoln in his inaugural address. He stated that force would only be used to collect “imposts and duties”, in other words, the war was fought over money.

Everything else (slavery, preserving the union) is a smokescreen exposed by Lincoln’s own words.

I would also recommend reading Lincoln’s Special Session Message to Congress on July 4, 1861. The President lays out his case for war in some detail. Most of his arguments are rather legalistic and seem odd justifications for an actual war. The following really jumped out at me however.

“The nation purchased with money the countries out of which several of these States were formed. Is it just that they shall go off without leave and without refunding? The nation paid very large sums (in the aggregate, I believe, nearly a hundred millions) to relieve Florida of the aboriginal tribes. Is it just that she shall now be off without consent or without making any return? The nation is now in debt for money applied to the benefit of these so-called seceding States in common with the rest. Is it just either that creditors shall go unpaid or the remaining States pay the whole? A part of the present national debt was contracted to pay the old debts of Texas. Is it just that she shall leave and pay no part of this herself?

Again: If one State may secede, so may another; and when all shall have seceded none is left to pay the debts. Is this quite just to creditors? Did we notify them of this sage view of ours when we borrowed their money? If we now recognize this doctrine by allowing the seceders to go in peace, it is difficult to see what we can do if others choose to go or to extort terms upon which they will promise to remain.”

That is, Lincoln is suggesting that the servicing the national debt is jeopardized by the loss of the Southern States. Ultimately, these states represent real collateral. So once again we are led back to the bankers.

@Jonathan David: Lincoln’s address to congress must be looked at in context.

At the time of Lincoln’s inauguration, the senate, but not the house, was in session due to the situation at fort sumter. Lincoln completely refused to provide the senate with any information, even in redacted form. Seeing that they were at a dead end, the senate adjourned.

Immediately upon adjournment, Lincoln put his fort sumter plan into motion. Of course, we’re all familiar with what happened after. Lincoln called up 75,000 troops from the states, which directly led to the secession of 4 more states. He then began his invasion of the south in late June in western Virginia.

I should note that, immediately after fort sumter in early April, Lincoln called for an emergency session of congress ….. on July 4, almost 3 months after.

So what we have is, without any input from congress …. heck, without even informing congress, Lincoln began a war amongst the states. In pursuit of that, he issued 3 separate orders of suspension of habeas corpus, again without congress.

So that is what Lincoln faced on July 4 with congress. He acknowledged that his acts were legally questionable, but left it to congress to decide.

Congress, being much the same spineless creatures we see today, rubber-stamped Lincoln’s actions and we were off on a civil war, constitution be damned!!

@woogs Good background. By the way, do you know of any other documentary evidence (preferably by Lincoln) which argues why preserving the union was so vital? People keep confusing reasons for secession with reasons for the war, which as you point out, was clearly driven by Lincoln’s strategy.

Very interesting post
But not sure this conclusion is the correct (or only) one:
“So once again we are led back to the bankers.”

Even if there weren’t any bankers and the US had had only a national bank, there would still be an issue of paying bakc monies borrowed to purchase the land that became various Southern states (I assume, Louisiana Purchase, Texas, and Florida). (I seem to recall that the white Southern settlers who colonized Texas wanted to become part of the US. Slavery was very much an issue in the ultimate annexation of Texas as a slave state.)

Anyhow, Lincoln’s logic seems to be that the federal government “owns” the states. If they want to secede, they have to pay to get out. But Lincoln I believe fought the Civil War partly to nullify and reject the idea that any state could secede from the Union under any circumstances.
Which may be right or may be wrong, but is interesting in light of the fact that referendums for self-determination seem to be considered a human right by the UN, and also of the fact that American citizens have to *pay* to stop being citizens.

“Lincoln was the Churchill of his time. And I don’t mean that in a good way.”

There was a good way to say that…?

“We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not.”
~ Winston Churchill, 1936

Of course, if you look at any war without factoring in the bankster cartel, you’re doing it wrong. When President Andrew Jackson shut down the 2nd Bank of the US, one of the Federal Reserve’s predecessors (and became our first president with an assassination attempt because of it), he predicted that, “This great and glorious Republic would soon be broken into a multitude of petty States… trampled upon by the nations of Europe.” And he was correct: 26 years later, the North and South were played off each other and the US broke.

The “trampled upon by the nations of Europe” part comes into play when England wanted to send naval vessels to support the Confederacy. Find the article, “U.S. Civil War: The US-Russian Alliance that Saved the Union;” the banksters basically balkanized the US and sided with the South as their pawn. However, Tsar Alexander II, who ended serfdom in Russia, sent Russian ships to prevent England’s military aid. He was assassinated several years after President Lincoln, and the cartel would eventually fund and motivate the Bolshevik Revolution to try and kill off Tsarist Russia for good.

I can’t follow the logic here. I don’t dispute the history.
But it was Lincoln who resisted and rejected the idea that states could secede.
So, with the Churchill analogy, not sure who was forcing the war on whom.
Sounds like Britain and wanted the war, to smash the Union and gain control of its ultra-important raw material, cotton, keep the South de-industrialized (as in India they had made out very big by de-industrializing the Moghul Empire and transferring the textile manufacturing function to Britain); the Confederacy of dunces said “Yee haw,” sounds good—and Lincoln and the North said, “No way.”
So, from the p.o.v. of not letting the Union be smashed as Jackson had foretold, then Lincoln comes out smelling good.

“But it was Lincoln who resisted and rejected the idea that states could secede.”

Consider the alternative, Katherine: Wouldn’t the divided States getting militarily dominated by England be worse than jamming the Union back together? Similar to World War 2, the banksters, through England, forced the issue. I don’t see another viable option Lincoln could have made. Do you…?

This pathetic attempt to re-write history and turn a tawdry, filthy cause into a noble endeavor has helped to cause much turmoil and suffering over the many decades since then. I have looked up and read the articles of secession. Slavery is specifically mentioned in six of them, and rather extensively in some, having been mentioned 35 times in Georgia’s declaration, 22 in Texas’, and 18 in South Carolina’s. (There was also a seventh state whose declaration mentioned “our domestic institution,” but I forget which one.) It’s quite clear, to me at least, that slavery was in fact the cause of secession.

”. . .monuments and memorials to the Confederacy which are a deep part of Southern Culture . . .”

So is slavery, so what? Cutting out and eating the beating hearts of war prisoners was a part of one civilizations’ culture, as was headhunting and shrinking in another. Fortunately, those cultures died out as successive generations came to their senses and decided to become civilized. We’re still waiting for that to happen in “the Deep South.”

Jack, I respectfully disagree with you. Everything I have read and researched over the years, and I read only original writings from the times around the war and up through about 1890 (antique book stores are a vast treasury of such writings and often inexpensive), shows the war was indeed over State’s Rights. The argument was the Federal Government had only to do with international policy, customs entry and exit, etc., and the States decided their individual policies themselves.

Slavery was a dying institution and a rather small percentage of southerners owned slaves. If you want to get down to basics, who brought the slaves to the American markets and from where? Look it up, it will be interesting readings but I caution, only read that which was written around the time and before the war. Race had nothing to do with the war and if you can read between the lines you will see another little research project for you.

Equating Southern Culture with cannibalism and head hunting shows you have little understanding of either history or the current discussion thread. Whilst I abhor the very fact and act of slavery I must mention that slavery is extant to this day in most of world one way or another so why denigrate The South for an institution that was destroyed 150 years ago and not denigrate it concerning such worthy allies of ‘US’ as Saudi Arabia amongst many other more or less worthy allies to this day?

The reason the Southern states seceded and the reason the North fought was states’ rights.
The South insisted on it. The North resisted it.
The slavery thing was emotional for some, mostly in the North. But no one would have fought that war just for slavery, to keep it or to end it.
Lincoln took several years to emancipate the slaves, which proves it was not a primary issue.
In the South, the slavery issue was economic. They could not adapt from the use of slaves.
However, a small minority of the Southern army were slave owners. But all were states’ righters.

Slavery was a global issue at the time, also. Not just an American issue. Trade everywhere was competitive based on slave labor. Industrialization of agriculture was far off. Labor was intensive.
Farming to scale required cheap labor. Indebted servitude was one source. Slaves were another.

The issue serious enough for men to fight had to be over their notion of Liberty. The South saw a Federal government with dominance over their state as Tyranny. The North saw the financial (taxes, debts, growth) aspects of a central government as necessary.

The North won. Melodrama has raised slavery as a cover over the centrality of what the cause of war was. State’s rights is considered the real sin of the South and Populists.
Ideological Statists demand a powerful central government which is needed to project American hegemonic power. They continued to compact all power to Washington. We see the federalization of local police departments and some major city governments. States that go bankrupt will soon be federalize also.

Distracting the succeeding waves of “White Nationalists”, Populists, Alt Right and other manifestations from the root of their fight with the Tyranny of the Federal government has been made easy by coloring them with Race/Slavery/White Supremacy branding and propaganda.

And many of the very few true racists embrace that branding thinking it will help build their movement.

But the vast majority of others who resist the Federal government (and fight it for open lands, the end of Federal ownership of most land, parks, and military bases and shore facilities) the same issue is at the heart of their movements: states’ rights.

Confederacy fits their intellectual ideology.
Has very little or nothing to do with race or slavery.

The South was mired in an inefficient neo-feudal economic model based on the slavery system, so this is no surprise. In fact, slavery was already an obsolete and dying institution at the time of the war. Not however, because of moral concerns, but simply due to the fact that slavery was economically inefficient, and was particularly poorly suited to Industrial Capitalism. Had the South been successful, they would have had to industrialize or risk becoming a backwater and would have abandoned slavery in any case as did other industrial economies.

From what I have read, the roots of the drive for succession were economic. The Federal government was increasingly required to promote the interests of Northern industrialists who were protectionists. The South were Free Traders and would have preferred a more profitable economic partnership with the British. By imposing tariffs such as the 1828 “Tariff of Abominations”, the Federal government forced the South to preferentially trade with the North. To add insult to injury, tax revenues from tariffs were used to expand industrial infrastructure in the North which gave no benefit to the South.

These divergence of economic interests were more than enough to prompt secession.

The “Cutting out and eating the beating hearts of war prisoners was a part of one civilizations’ culture” you talk about was the Aztec’s in Mexico. And it was ended by the “colonial Conquest of Mexico” by the Spanish. So then,you think the Spanish conquest was a good thing in the Americas,an “interesting” point of view. Not shared by most Mexicans,I might add. Who have monuments put up to their Aztec ancestors.I don’t see any mobs tearing those down. And yet “strangely” very few to their Spanish conquerors ( who did have mobs tearing some of them down). I guess one persons view of history can be different than another’s. Something it would probably be good for you to think about.

Whether the war was fought over state’s rights or slavery, or a state’s right for its residents to keep slaves is one thing.
In support of one or the other of these positions, people bring arguments about teh economic status of the slave system that I believe reflect misunderstanding of the role of the slave economy in making Northern and also European fortunes, and in driving the industrial revolution in both the North and especially in the textile mills of Manchester. Textiles were one of the basic drivers of the industrial revolution. The invention of the spinning Jenny drove the skyrocketing use and value of cotton, as opposed to other fibers.

The Northern and Southern economies were closely intertwined. You really cannot separate them. So Northerners, whether they knew it or not, were profiting from the putatively “feudal” economic system in the South. After the end of the Civil War–Reconstruction interlude, this “feudal” quasi-slavery economy reinstated itself via the sharecroppoing system, with the difference that plantation owners had no further need to pay any upkeep on their sharecropper/slaves. The system was maintained via the extreme pressures on the workforce of the Jim Crow system.

“Exports. The Southern economy was not undynamic or unproductive, though. During the period before the Civil War, Southern staples made up three-fifths of total American exports, and cotton was by far the country’s largest export. Southern plantations and farms supplied three-fourths of the world cotton crop—the mainstay of textile manufacturing in both Great Britain (the world’s leading economic superpower) and the United States. Southern planters saw themselves, and accurately so, as a key component in the Industrial Revolution and a critical part of an international economic system. As one planter bragged in 1853, “Our Cotton is the most wonderful talisman in the world. By its power we are transmuting whatever we choose into whatever we want.” James Hammond, speaking in the U.S. Senate five years later, was even more trenchant: “The slaveholding South is now the controlling power of the world. Cotton, rice, tobacco, and naval stores command the world…. No -power on earth dares . . . to make war on cotton. Cotton is king.”http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/cotton-economy-south

You are correct but IMHO miss the main point.
The globalist/progressive have a global civilizational view. They are against nations, tradition and rooted people. They support individualistic and atomized society (identity/minority politics, no border, no specific culture and so on and on…).

The heart of the matter is that they wage a religious war.
Against tradition. Against conservatism. Against nations. And against their symbolic representation (see the iconoclastic move of a general statue)
Trump and Putin are clearly in the opposite side.
No matter politics or geopolitics, good or bad, right or wrong. The so called progressive left will do all they can to wipe them out. To deny their belief. To erase them.

Such “progressive” religion is at the heart of and an inherent element of the capitalist and modern western philosophy.

It has proven to be superior on material, organizational and economic level.
That explains why the south has been “absorbed” by way of war and is slowly digested culturally.

That is exactly what the so called progressive left (knowingly or not is not the point) is trying to achieve with Russia.

No matter what Putin do it would not be enough.
Russia needs to be digested.

What needs to be understood is that the capitalistic progressive left is by itself kind of religion.
They truly sees this ideological struggle as a clash of civilization in current globalized world.

Makes no mistake. I am not taking position between the so called progressive left and the so called alt-right (truly the right as the old conservatives have been globally digested years ago by the progressive left narrative).

But I am only stating the force at play.
Whether we like it or not. Such ideological struggle exists.

That simply explains the seemingly irrational and senseless hatred against Trump (or the deplorable by the way) or Putin. That is proto-religious intolerance.

Call it what you may, Auslander but the same Empire we face today, intending to make ALL of us slaves was up to its neck in orchestrating the US War Between the States, and was THE international logistical, financial, intelligence, and political support for Jefferson Davis and his rebels just as they were for the Chechens you fought 140 years later.

Ummmm?

But I’m not for stirring up old passions.

Leave the Statues of Robert E Lee alone, IMHO. How can anyone learn from history if they erase it??

Or even forget it?

It is important to understand ALL of it, but move forward to TODAY.

Here and NOW I think a great many of us can find ourselves on the same side, possibly, if present day urgencies can outweigh old squabbles and wounds, in our lists of priorities.

I like understanding all sides:

Circa 1974, upon leaving a few months stay in Key West and New Orleans, deciding on Alaska instead, I picked up a (young) “good ole’ Lousiana boy” hitch hiking along the Gulf Coast not very far west of New Orleans, in my 1965 blue Dodge Dart slant 6, and gave him a ride of 30 miles or so.

I tried to make conversation, but he didn’t have much to say. Very slowly, I told him about my time in the Florida Keys and the Big Easy and told him I was going to Alaska, but I did kind of like it in the Deep South.

No reaction.

Finally, I asked him, “How do you like it here in Louisiana??”

“IT SUCKS!!” was his immediate, peevish reply.

“Oh, why do you say that??”, I inquired.

“Too many DAMNED YANKEES down here!!”, he explained, adamantly (to one of them…).

I smiled and kept on driving another 10 miles or so to his destination, happy about my deeper understanding, gained from meeting one of the locals that wasn’t going to hold anything back, if asked something about how he really felt, point blank.

Sorry to disagree, but the war was over who was going to benefit from the slaves’ labor: the northern industrialists, the southern plantation owners who were too stupid and greedy to avoid exhausting their soil, or the english industrialists. At the time of the civil war, 1 out of every 5 jobs in england was in the textiles industry. None of these actors were clean or noble; just look at how trivial the issue of ‘Sates Rights’ was in the southern mountain regions, where there were no plantations.

“ut the war was over who was going to benefit from the slaves’ labor: the northern industrialists, the southern plantation owners who were too stupid and greedy to avoid exhausting their soil, or the english industrialists. ”

The war was also over who would control the American West, and whether new states west of Kansas etc. would be slave or free and what the political and economic character of the West would be.
Businessmen and politicians both were putting together plans to create infrastructure of various kinds, especially a southern route railroad, to connect southern ports to the Pacific, etc.
Very interesting account of this aspect of the war in Colin Woodard, American Nations. His chapter on the Civil is in fact titled “The War for the West.”

@Auslander – thanks for the insight from the deep south, I was really looking for the perspective.
I’d disagree about the fight back – I don’t believe that’s going to happen any time soon, US society is so consumerist that nothing else matters enough, as long as people have what to eat. Which isn’t by accident.

“Just so you know, vot tak, I am from the Deep South and to this day amongst ourselves we do call the altercation The War of Northern Aggression.”

Just so you know, I also come from the “deep south”, but a different coast. I first saw that silly name for the civil ear on a forum that discussed the oil business, mainly. One commentator there used “war of yankee aggression” and few of the other regulars had a polite chuckle over it. Somehow, I doubt black people use that name.

I don’t call it that. Because I consider it a “Civil War”. But to be historically accurate that term is closer to the truth. As for black people using that name for it, probably not. But should that be a problem for history? Not to me. In reality the Civil War ended slavery. But that wasn’t the purpose of it. Lincoln himself said when encouraged to free the slaves. That if he could save the Union by not ending slavery he would do it. And he intended (had he lived) to send the ex-slaves to Africa. As he thought it wouldn’t be possible to sustain a society peacefully between the two groups (today’s US is showing he may have been right about that).In Ireland the Catholic Irish see the British invasion of Ireland in a different light than the the North Protestant Irish do. But I doubt that worries them much . They both just call it by what they want. I think we should follow that lead.

And the Russians have every right to use the term “Great Patriotic War.”
To me, “Civil War” seems like a fairly neutral term.
Northerners could also call it “the War of the Southern Secession” or some such . . .
Katherine

“They should go ask the liberal whites in Rhodesia how well they are faring in Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe. They should ask South African whites how secure they believe themselves to be now that they have turned over power and a second black political party as risen, forcing political competition between black politicians into which black party hates whites the most.”
Zimbabwe is under vicious and criminal sanctions imposed by ‘international community’ because Labour government reneges on Britain’s obligations and Mugabe get demonized.
‘On being approached by the Zimbabwean government, to bring to fruition the discussions initiated during the previous Conservative government, the Blair administration reneged entirely on Britain’s Lancaster House undertakings to assist with Zimbabwe’s land reform programme. Clare Short, the then newly appointed Secretary of State for International Development, in a letter dated 5 November 1997, wrote in these arrogant and patronising terms to Zimbabwe’s minister of Agriculture and Land, Kumbirai Kangai: “I should make it clear that we do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. We are a new Government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial interests. My own origins are Irish and as you know we were colonised not colonisers”.’ (source: http://www.lalkar.org/article/1375/zimbabwe-will-never-be-a-colony-again).
South Africa is different issue, 20+ years after Nelson Mandela’s ‘Historical compromise’ it is glaringly obvious there was never a compromise, but rather ‘Historical treason’. Over night after ‘Historical whatever’ is signed and the Freedom Charter abandoned, Mandela was instantly promoted from a terrorist to a galactic celebrity.

Americans (including many in the West) are truly messed up, ignorant and corrupt as an elite but also as a society.

Just look at these combination of contradictory ideas/thinking:

– Nationalistic but pro-Israel ?!?!

Nothing wrong with looking after your own interests as a country or people, but being pro-Israel and supporting people who want to own, dominate and control your country for their own goals ?? Supporting a corrupt and evil entity who is killing and occupying others thousands of miles away based on a superiority of their ideology ?

– Pro-Homosexual and pro-Muslim / pro-Muslim minority ?!?!…….

There are two things wrong with this combination, and I can tell you this because I am a Muslim: 1. Homosexuality is strongly forbidden in Islam…Muslims must according to their faith completely condemn this way of life, they should not ally or associate themselves with movements supporting this way of life what so-ever.

Homosexual movements and the left-wing liberals try to use any minority to bring them in their fold, we are talking for example about Muslim minorities in the West.

So you have homosexual liberals supporting a group who should actually be condemning them and not associating themselves with them….this is also an indication of the corruption of the Muslim minorities in the US and possibly in Europe. Corruption in the sense of allying themselves with an ideology that goes against their own beliefs.

White Christian conservative Americans have actually more things in common with Muslim conservative minorities living in the West from a belief / faith point of view. However, due to their corrupt and contradictory views, these two groups have been placed in exactly opposite camps.

Another messed up example:

Left-wing liberals supporting homosexuals are in an alliance with or part of the Neo-Con movement and are killing Muslims around the world left and right……while at the same time, these left-wing liberals support Muslim minority rights and freedoms in the West ??

So they kill Muslims and Arabs not in the West, while they support Muslim minorities in the West. Whatever, works for them and their goals.

Then you have conservative Christians who want to clean the swamp of the left-wing liberals, while supporting Neo-Con Zionist ideas of Pro-Israel and killing and dominating Muslim and committing wars and crimes around the world…….White kind of Christianity and Conservatism is this ?

The people in the West cannot have it both ways……you cannot preserve your own interests and countries while you support corrupt and evil ideas and policies, whether it is homosexuality or pro-Israel Zionist world domination. These corrupt ideas and policies will eventually eat your societies and destroy you.

You cannot fight for the truth and preserve justice and freedom, when you are living in a completely contradictory and unnatural way. Like a cancer, eventually these ideas and policies will spread and eat away at your societies.

The West is not the first or the last society that will be destroy itself in this manner.

Dear Xxxxxx, What you fail to understand is that the west is run by the Jews, not the Christians. This is where you lot always get it wrong. Please get it in to your xxxxx heads, the west is owned lock, stock and barrel by Jews.
Got it?
Now start your diatribe again bearing this in mind please!
Thank you.

“In many cases they have not become owned by the Jews but are actually in an “alliance” with these Zionist Jews out of choice.”

This is interesting, becuase who controls the purse controls the needy beggar.
In Israel, Americans control the purse through military aid and lots of other aid, not to mention ideological defense (at the UN, etc.)l.
In the USA, Israelis/Zionists/Jews of various stripes control the purse via contributions to legislators.
So it seems to be unclear who owns whom, or, “Who’s zoomin’ who”
In any event, it is an “unholy alliance.”

Frankly, from the other end of the planet it would not be an entirely bad thing if the USA turned on itself in another god awful civil war.

At best it would entirely preoccupy its neocon/zionist mic cabal and the rest of the world could set about cleaning up the horrendous mess that years of hegemony have created. Hopefully the aftermath will leave us with no one state big enough to ever lord it over humanity ever again.

Sorry, Yanks, but you thoroughly deserve what is coming your way. The price of freedom is eternal vigilence, and you have spent the last 60 years not paying attention to the stuff that really matters.

What’s especially promising is the Pindos’ infatuation with firearms, bloodshed, and unrestrained violence — a sincere tribute to their Zionazi rulers, mind you. It won’t take much to escalate hostilities to the point where Pindo demographics begin to take a hit. Less exceptionals and indispensables for the rest of us to put up with.

Interesting take, SG, and I am tending to agree, but that particular genie has a habit of getting extremely feral once it is out of the bottle.

The deep state honchos in DC might like to think they run stuff, but reality looks very different to the police officers and privates who cannot work out which of the 5 snipers from 4 different militias to take out first when they are pinned down and getting well and truly brassed up. There are an awfully large number of Americans who have been preparing for a very long time, and even more who have done absolutely no preparing. Nature has a tendency to fill vacuums.

I just wanted to point out this statement “the interest of the broad American public should come before trade deals that serve the interests of other counries” because I don’t think the US gratuity serves the interests of many other countries apart of itself. Perhaps Israel, and I’m not aware of any other, quite the contrary. The enemies and bloodsuckers of the American people are not other countries, no, their enemies are their own establishment, their anglo-zionist ruling elites. Actually the American people benefits greatly sucking blood from other countries. Most of them.

You are, of course, correct. As an American it is obvious that most Americans do not distinguish between benefits accruing to their ruling elites (accurately described as *Anglo-Zionist*) and benefits accruing to themselves. As a result, they conflate the interests of their ruling elite with their own self-interests, a terrible mistake. Then again, most Americans are literally spell-bound (as in: entranced/enchanted) by the non-stop media narrative promulgated by their ruling elites. They are watching a movie and believe it to be reality.

And yet, the monster stirs. The country is heavily armed. The elites are not that clever. It could yet become interesting.

The elite on both Europe and the US need racial strife in their countries to deflect attention from their collapsing economies whilst maintaining their grip on power. Identity politics is an ideal instrument to fracture and divide your own populace as it enables the elite to play all sides against each other thus ensuring no unified opposition to their rule. The more threatened their grip on power is the greater the violence will be.

The only saving grace for the US is a highly armed domestic populace. Europe no such luck.

Assange Hammers America on Selective Outrage Over US Backing for Ukraine’s Neo-Nazis

Julian Assange, founder of the global transparency group WikiLeaks, took to Twitter to highlight and expose the extreme hypocrisy of the US by contrasting the recent extreme right vs extreme left protests in Charlottesville, which resulted in one death and multiple injuries, and the U.S. government funding of Ukrainian neo-Nazi groups during the Ukrainian coup that overthrew then president Viktor Yanukovych.

“But if anyone in the west wears a t-shirt with Azov symbols, they will face 5-20 years in jail for ‘hate crime’ “

It remains to be seen whether that will change with a growing presence of Ukronazis in the EU. In the eyes of the Eurocrats, Nazi perceptions of Russia and her people are not only acceptable but even desirable. Once the anti-Russian symbolism as per the Ukronazi interpretation of the Azov symbol becomes more well-known, the latter will become tolerated and respectable in the EU.

“The only saving grace for the US is a highly armed domestic populace. Europe no such luck.”

Ask yourself this: How many gun-toting Pindos have ever contemplated armed revolution against Western corporatocracy? Better believe me: The ruling Zionazis understand 100% the difference between armed struggle as per the examples set by the Russians and the Cubans and a bunch of die-hard, armed reactionaries fond of bragging about what a terrific experience they’ve got from serving in the armed wing of Western imperialism.

Look up the w\Weather u\Underground from the early seventies. We were allied to Viet Nam veterans against the War and had access to Russian weapons. WU bombed the pentagon and capitol buildings. Nixon surrendered to the Vietnamese before the action could really start.

“How many gun-toting Pindos have ever contemplated armed revolution against Western corporatocracy?”

“By 1971, so many GIs were refusing orders, fragging and killing officers and deserting that the Pentagon warned Nixon the military was on the verge of collapse.”
~ “The GI Revolt That Ended the Vietnam War,” Dr. Stuart Jeanne Bramhall

“Soldiers protesting U.S. military strikes against Syria are taking to Facebook to voice their opposition to a war. ‘I didn’t join the Marine Corps to fight for al Qaeda in a Syrian Civil War,’ one Marine in uniform declared, in a message written on a piece of paper he held strategically to block his face and conceal his identity.”
~ “Service members anonymously protest potential war against Syria on Facebook,” Leslie Larson

So no, Nussi, the potential to topple the bankster cartel from within the US is there. It just takes the right trigger(s) and ways to keep controlled opposition at bay.

to think the evil down to the end of their street, ‘antifa’ is going do the incendiary work of the SA
paid by you know who and in Germany die Grünen as fanatical “Ukrainians” owning
the “Heinrich Böll Stiftung” link to the media, the dragons earthly deap part of the net and their “Gesinnungspolizei” …

But the newborn child is invisible like all batallions of God and like the MotherGod whose
ascendance into the holy thalamus has been consciously declared as constant 67 Years befor today
in Rome. In Austria and with us in Bavaria there is bell-ringing holiday against utter cynicism against
the soul.

PCR’s often makes excellent points, but he is quite often over the top, as is the case in this article. I also find NPR stories biased in a variety of ways, and not necessarily “leftist/liberal”.

In any event, PCR poses a good question: how is it possible for the liberal/progressive/left to really believe that they are oppressed by powerful white male heterosexuals when they can demonize white males at will and prevent any backtalk?

For the same reason that despite huge protests not only in the U.S. but around the world, a hugely violent and destabilizing war was launched against Iraq by powerful white male neocons. For the same reason that the U.S. Congress, Senate, and Presidency is dominated by powerful white males. For the same reason that corporate CEOs and board of directors are dominated by powerful white males. For the same reason women still earn less than men for doing the same job.

Quite simply put, white males securely hold the reigns of power in the U.S. and can safely ignore any “back talk”. And with the election of a prototypical white male amoral sociopath, elements of this club are feeling empowered to roll back the gains women, LGBTQ, and people of color have made over the decades towards equal rights.

The reason males hold such reigns of power is that a significant percentage of males are amoral sociopaths attracted to power and ready to wield power with no concern about consequences. In the U.S. it happens to be white males for historical reasons, but the same holds true for black males in Africa, Asian males in Japan and China, etc etc.

This male grasp of power started before historical times and is reflected in the deep misogyny and discrimination against others embedded in practically ever major religion, enacted in laws since recorded history. The elevations of males is even enshrined in the English language: humanity, mankind, history, woman!

I agree. At the same time, I’ll note that there has always been a small percentage of women as amoral and sociopathic as men. As I suspect there is a genetic basis for male amoral sociopaths, it seems reasonable that some of their genes would make it into the female gene pool. Also, culture plays a significant role in turning out women sociopaths, historically by enabling women whose main path to power was to attach themselves to powerful male sociopaths, Hillary Clinton being a prime example.

The great dilemna of powerful civilizations is that power attracts amoral sociopaths, primarily male, who wield their power to the enormous destruction of the people and world around them, as they have no conscience and enjoy wielding such power.

James’s mother had no clue as to her sons ideological sentiments or what the rally he was to attend was about as reported in her interview with AP. Her answers exposed her as yet another uncaring parent unwilling to get involved with the upbringing of her child:

Oh, the next in the fascist-left’s line of fire will be religion. Be prepared when you say, ” Merry Christmas” in public, to be rebuked at least in a trendy area or a big city. No more live and let live. And everyone just knows that Christianity is homophobic! You know what that means, Antifa.

Ironically, the 1% are 99% white males. But it is the working class males who are called deplorable because of their sometimes casual racism ( yes, I know some NASCAR watching older white guys who are not fond of their black neighbors) but the real racism, that ruins lives and is social policy so carefully disguised, comes from those 1% and their minions in the press, in the music industry, in sports, in academia, in the prison-industrial complex,in the policy of their military wars abroad etc .

Perhaps now they will strive to make a more gentle, color blind oppression called techno serfdom. Any mention of class war will be anathema.

“If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
― George Orwell, Animal Farm

Churchill is quoted as saying, “…truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”

Of course, Churchill was a member of the establishment. The face of the establishment may have changed but the power behind it hasn’t and neither has its strategies or tactics.

I am a fan of my late friend Victoria BC lawyer Doug Christie. Canada’s greatest civil rights lawyer, he specialized in defending those whose opinions brought down the wrath of the Establishment. His guiding principle was, in action though not in so many words, that truth is what is most important. Truth requires freedom to speak. Powerful and wealthy people have no need of his services. Truth often if not usually lies with the marginalized and the politically oppressed.

Mr Paul Craig Roberts,
I read your work. Sometimes you overshoot and sometimes you undershoot. But, I can live with all of that. So, I read this piece and was good with it until you got to:

“If the white heterosexual males lose, I wonder who will protect the white women. Are they destined for the same rape and butchery as befell German women from the Russians and Americans once the Wehrmacht surrendered?”

And then I knew you were talking non-sense. Any other white woman around there that got to that sentence and said … bollocks?

Look, I understand the plight of the white men as much as I possibly can not being one. And no, I am not a screaming feminist .. today’s feminism leaves me cold and mostly embarassed. But if we use the strength of the men only to support a case of safe-guarding women, it is the opposite of saying that the “Muslim’s are coming to get our women”. It is the same old hackneyed argument, just turned around. We could do better. We could support the issue based on its merits. It will be stronger that way.

I nearly died when I saw you here commenting on my comment, Mr Roberts. I have much respect for you and for what you do.

Over the top? PCR is scarily on target! Once the soldiers are defeated, the most vulnerable group of the losing side are totally exposed.
And not just the women- the children, the elderly, the handicapped. They are often subject to sickening revenge! War is not a Hollywood movie starring Brad Pitt…

Well, I had a good laugh at that common male fantasy, mainly culled from Hollywood movies. Women of any colour with experience of the world don’t expect protection by men with its concomitant undertones of ownership, because it is rare. Nice when it happens, as in one person looking out for another person of whatever colour or gender, but rare.

Single women are extraordinarily self reliant and may not need or wish for “personalised” male protection, but they still benefit from the collective security provided to society by police officers, firefighters, security personnel etc and aren’t these people still mostly men?

‘ but they still benefit from the collective security provided to society by police officers……..’

Clearly not in this case, Charlottesville, nor in many others where violence, also still largely the province of men, is indulged.

As I said, protection is nice, but rare. Only naïve women expect it and they are swiftly disabused in the real world. All women learn, from the cradle, to live defensively to a degree if they are to live at all…….because they know, being physically weaker, they are vulnerable to male violence.

If only.
Women of color who avail themselves of the “stand your ground” laws in, say, Florida when subjected to abuse or threat of rape will not fare very well with the police or a court of law.
This is an established record.
“Stand Your Ground” does not apply for women of color.

The point that is being made : should ethnic strife / civil war ever break out, and especially if your group is on the losing side, then the security situation -unfortunately already precarious in your respective countries, Katherine and One Minion- will definitely get worse, especially for the women, and this will happen no matter how “defensively” you live and how self reliant you are!

Re- read what PCR wrote: “IF white males lose…”

Look at what happened in my country when Serbia lost against NATO, the Krajina region was ethnically cleansed, women and children raped and murdered in all parts of former Yugoslavia. Pregnant Russian women raped and throat slit in Odessa in the building that was overrun by the Ukronazis. Nanking when it was overrun by the Japanese Imperial Army. Do you need more examples?

In South Africa there are “plaasmoorde” – attacks by blacks on white farmers. Unless the victims happen to have dual South African/UK nationality you won’t dread about this in British papers. (“British woman killed in South Africa after robbers torture her with blow torch and leave her husband for dead”, The Telegraph, 23 Feb 2017)

What has generally been taught, or heavily implied in the teaching, is that the good guys in the American Civil War went to fight in order to free the slaves.
You know, out of their great good yankee heart, they did that. Something like that.

Clearly, this must be pure nonsense, which is no impediment for so many people actually believing it to this day.

More likely, it seems to me, is that the causes of that ware were much more prosaic. But I don’t know enough about it to say what they were.

At any rate, that war could be seen as one of the first battles between globalism (in the sense of unbridled universal looting) and the preservation of national sovereignty. It can be seen as an important landmark in the march toward world government. Disguised as usual, of course, in the robes of saintliness. It should be noted that the notion of sovereignty is increasingly presented in association with dark and despicable forces of the human soul, including streaks of mild retardation, “deplorables” and so on.

PCR: “Are they destined for the same rape and butchery as befell German women from the Russians and Americans once the Wehrmacht surrendered?”

I respect Paul Craig Roberts for many things, but he should study history properly, or not speak about it. There was no such thing as mass rape of German women by Russian soldiers. This was a western fantasy, and there are serious research books devoted to the matter. Besides, this is was simply impossible in the Red Army, where any deviation could result in a very severe punishment (funny that the Stalin’s bashers do not notice that obvious contradiction in their stories).

I have followed you closely for several years, Dr. Roberts, and, for the most part I have shared your views. This time I believe you have been blinded to the horrific destruction this president is wreaking on our country.

Did the Clinton/Bush/Obama years leave the country in a terrible mess? Without a doubt. Did Donald Trump attract voters desperately seeking redress from the ravages forced on them over those years? Unquestionably. Would Hillary Clinton have continued on the same destructive path as her predecessors? Of course. But now that our current President has shown his true colors – obeisance to the financial elites – and, particularly after today’s hair-raising performance in front of the press, fully revealed himself as a dangerously deluded narcissistic sociopath, we can no longer afford to indulge in our own comforting delusions.

The tipping point has now been unequivocally reached.

Via whatever pressure can be brought to bear, the President must request the resignation of his Cabinet officials and the Vice President, submit his own resignation, and ask Congress to select an interim President and to schedule a special national election within the next six months.

As drastic a recommendation as this is, the incredibly horrific scenario that has been unfolding since January absolutely must be stopped for the sake of our country and our planet. There is no time to waste and half measures will only make things worse.

My goodness, Bob! Whose side are you on? That was not a hair-raising meltdown in front of the press. Rather, it was an effective counter-attack against foes pressing to gain a hold on Trump’s throat to choke him to death—and all of us deplorables with him.

I guess “once the Wehrmacht surrendered” means that the Russians were able to overrun Poland and Germany and reach Berlin. Yes, of course there were a lot of rapes by Russians. No Wehrmacht in sight to protect anyone. Women left in Berlin and elsewhere but especially in Berlin had to figure out how to protect themselves, hide their daughters, or go along to get along.
Not so sure about Americans as rapists.
But the record is pretty clear about the “Wehrmacht” (those are ironic scare quos) record of raping Russian and other women in conquered territories. Please. A lot of the raping in Berlin and Germany was payback, for rapes and . . . everything else.
See “Why We Fight,” Frank Capra, on Youtube.
Most of the German women were not murdered and their bodies defiled after they had been raped by Russians. At least, not that I know of.
Personally I find grandstanding with rape in time of war out of line and beyond the pale—“weaponizing” of this virtually universal expression of “to the victor belong the spoils.”
Women have always been the spoils and the victims of war.

I hope most of the american people realize they are being played against each others … They shouldn’t forget who their real ennemies are : the deep state, neocons and banksters.

One year ago, I came across a STUNNING video. I recommend watching it since this should convince everyone this is by design :
– SGT : SOROS / ROTHSCHILD CONSTANT RACE WAR PROPAGANDA EXPOSED –https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhqqz3QFQKE

What took place in Charlottesville is a very complicated and a very dangerous matter.

America is full of feral youth, many of them with or attaining a college education. Among this mass of feral youth are the millennials and the generation just behind them – ages 18 through nearly forty. Given contraception and abortion, they are fortunate that they were even born. Many of them come from fatherless households or households in which fathers have been emasculated by the Zeitgeist. They lack a metaphysical touchstone around which to orient their lives, so they are susceptible to fads, movements and ideologies. They want to be the would-be autonomous selves, each a Prometheus, capable of shaking his fists in the face of all gods; in fact, they are the opposite; they are shriveled, estranged and alienated selves. The would-be Nazis and the would-be Klansmen are easily interchangeable with Black Lives Matter and Antifa. They could easily change sides; some of them likely have and some likely will. Some on both sides were likely paid, probably by some NGO or some set of NGO’s, likely with some state actor in the deep background. This happened in Weimar Germany; some of the Communist thugs became Nazi thugs; and some of the Nazi thugs became Communist thugs.

The agenda in Charlottesville is very clear, again a page out of the Nazi or Bolshevik play book: Mr. Wes Bellamy, Mayor of Charlottesville, and certain member of the council willfully created a situation for confrontation. Let some hapless fellows with whom few would have affinity, namely would-be Nazis and would-be Klansmen, hold a vigil at the statue of General Robert E. Lee and deliberately invite BLM, notorious for its violence, and Antifa, notorious for its violence, to confront the would-be’s for whom there would be little to no public support. Antagonize the would-be’s to violence with violence; tell the police to stand down; cancel the permit for the vigil in the middle of the vigil and the violence; force the would-be’s to run the gauntlet of BML and Antifa and see if out of anger or fear you can get the would-be’s to overreact. Precisely that happened when the young man in his car killed the young girl. Ironically, this is want the Nazis did in the Kristallnacht. Nazi thugs fomented violence; the German police were ordered to stand down; and those who were at the receiving end of the violence were said to have called the violence. I predict that the young lady who lost her life will be abused in her death and turned into the Antifa equivalent of Horst Wessel.

It is very obvious that the agenda is a national agenda: to project the alleged violent and hateful nature of the would-be Nazis and would-be Klansman onto all Southerners and all Americans who defend their heritage, who are conservative and who are, with a little “o” and a little “c,” orthodox and catholic Christians. In the end, the aim is to deny the ‘deplorables” who voted for President Trump a place in the public square. Once the Left establishes that “hate” speech is not protected by the first amendment – the nature of which is a debate for another time – then speech against abortion, against illegal aliens, against “gay marriage,” against global warming will be labeled as “hate speech” and banned from public debate, with criminalization to follow. –

Herbert Marcuse, the radical cultural Marxist of the Frankfurt School, whose beefsteak tartar I have had the pleasure of eating on at least two occasions at parties in Los Angeles, declared in his writings and to those of us attending the parties, that tolerance from the cultural Marxist perspective excluded the ideas and actions of all who were not cultural Marxists.

Standing in the middle of this theater of the absurd produced by Mayor Wes Bellamy is General Robert Edward Lee, the Marble Man. It is again a historical irony that Mr. Bellamy has the same sir name as Francis Bellamy, a defrocked apostate Baptist preacher and an avowed national socialist who wrote the original version of the Pledge of Allegiance. General Lee faced in war the antecedents to both groups huddled before his imposing presence. After the failed German Revolution of 1848, many the nationalists and the internationalist among the German radicals fled Germany, came to America and ensconced themselves in the Republican Party and in the Union Army. Suggested reading is a book entitled “Lincoln’s Marxists.” Lee’s statute will, of course, be removed. Lee, the man, however, will by virtue of his humility, his subordination to the Christ, and his sense of duty in love to his family, his country (Virginia) and to his men who loved him with a devotion few generals have ever garnered, outlast on the historical scene the would-be Nazis, the would-be Klansmen, BLM, Antifa, the Honorable Mayor Bellamy and his unseen Marionettenmeister.

Footnote: The Left has far too many well trained. The Left yells, whether true or not, “hate,” “bigotry” and “racism.” No few respond in Pavlovian fashion, “We condemn it, too!” The Left affords the very people they will one day silence an opportunity to do a little feel-good “virtue signaling.” It is like the old communists on trial in Stalin’s kangaroo courts, “Yes, comrade, we deserve the execution we are about to receive.”

That young man in the Challenger(charger?) deserves his date in court.
Please, do not hang him yet.
Remember Reginald Denny!

Try this out for size:
You’ve been in a battle all day with the scum.
The event ended. You are hot. Dehydrated, disoriented, tired.
You find where you parked your car, hunted by these vermin.
You start the engine, put it in gear…and take the wrong turn – in a town unknown to you.
In seconds, you are surrounded, shouts ring out, they start pounding on your car.
Images of Reginald Denny roll into your mind – you panic, and the instincts take over…

Kill, and injure he sure did. I am sorry for his victims, I will pray for the innocent, and damn those, that had it coming. I did not say, he killed and injured scum, I said it was scum, that was hunting him.

Now, Murder? I am not sure.
Let us wait, till all the facts come out.
He shall be judged by twelve, I hope them town/county hyenas do not serve him up to the dogs inside.

Btw, why do you sa, you see nothing in parallel with the Reginald Denny case?
Could you expand on that?

Tell you why I ask: after Reg.D., I find myself on a jury, when I have to decide whether the instinct to flee from a murderous crowd justifies driving through it, I know how I vote.
Pending on testimony, facts, cross-examination, video and other evidence, if I get convinced on intent, either way, I will vote accordingly.
My dos centivos.

The crowd had not murdered, ‘murderous’ is your embellishment with no credible evidence to back it up. The crowd did not hurt this man even after he had killed one and injured many.

The perpetrators in the Denny case pulled a truck-driver from his cab, beat him almost to death and robbed him—— for which they were rightfully convicted. There was nothing of that kind happening to this man. He was in charge of a car, a potentially lethal weapon as every driver knows, and he drove it into a crowd of pedestrians–used it as a lethal weapon of mass destruction.

He then drove rapidly in reverse–which he could have done in the first place if his intent was flight. Intent will be examined at his trial despite your misguided efforts to fudge the issue here.

There you go.
I am glad, we came to the same conclusion.
Shit don’t look rosy for him right now, we’ll see, what he has to say for himself…if he manages to stay alive in there for the whole song’n’dance.

I think that would be a “bridge too far” for them to dare. The call for that was by a democrat black candidate for governor. I have a strong feeling that it was doubtful she’d have been elected in a “Red State”. After that statement I think she made it a certainty she won’t be elected.

The images carved at stone mountain is an ideal example of how messed up the usa is, and has been all along. Why demolish it, images of it should be broadcast worldwide, forewarning everybody what to expect.

There are two ways to deal with monuments that portray propaganda, especially offensive propaganda. One can remove them, or one can use them as lessons in how propaganda works by exposing what the thing actually represent and reinforce.

Naturally, zionazis, and their quislings don’t want the latter. Takes away all their fun.

1) Everyone who listens to NPR is already Soros/Globalist. Thus the actual impact of any event is zero. It is an echo chamber of the already corrupted.

2) The National Socalist “Nazi” party and its followers are by definition Leftist by virtue of being Socialist/Communist. The confrontation that occurred should thus be described as Alt-Left #1 “Antifa” versus Alt-Left #2 “Nazi”. There is proof in hand that #1 is funded by Soros. It will be interesting to see if there are money links between Soros and #2 even if it pretended to have a theoretically “Unite the Right” purpose. If so, then we have a Left-Left stage managed event.

Anon1: “2) The National Socalist “Nazi” party and its followers are by definition Leftist by virtue of being Socialist/Communist [..]”

Sure, next you’re gonna tell me that Hollande’s “Socialist Party” is indeed actually socialist and that the UK New Labour Party in its current form is the “worker’s party.” I bet that you’re one of those who believe that the EU is a Marxist/Communist institution. Just because the European Union is multi-national and expansive like the Soviet Union was, it doesn’t mean the EU it’s a “socialist” project. Lastly, the US Democratic party and liberals in general are not any more “leftist” (or leftist at all for that matter) than ISIS is a progressive, pacifist organization.

–

The National Socialist German Worker’s Party

“While it does look like a very socialist name, the problem is that ‘National Socialism’ is not socialism, but a different, fascist ideology. Hitler had originally joined when the party was called the German Worker’s Party, and he was there as a spy to keep an eye on it. It was not, as the name suggested, a devotedly left wing group, but one Hitler thought had potential, and as Hitler’s oratory became popular the party grew and Hitler became a leading figure.

At this point ‘National Socialism’ was a confused mishmash of ideas with multiple proponents, arguing for nationalism, anti-Semitism, and yes, some socialism. The party records don’t record the name change, but it’s generally believed a decision was taken to rename the party to attract people, and partly to forge links with other ‘national socialist’ parties.

The meetings began to be advertised on red banners and posters, hoping for socialists to come in and then be confronted, sometimes violently: the party was aiming to attract as much attention and notoriety as possible. But the name was not Socialism, but National Socialism and as the 20s and 30s progressed, this became an ideology Hitler would expound upon at length and which, as he took control, ceased to have anything to do with socialism [..]”

Did Hitler Say That Nazis Are “Mortal Enemies of the Present Capitalist Economic System”?

“While attributed to Hitler, this “leftist” quote actually came from one of Hitler’s political rivals.

Back in January 2016, conservative web site Louder with Crowder dipped its toes into the world of fact-checking with an article (“MYTH BUSTED: Actually, Yes, Hitler Was a Socialist Liberal”) that makes the claim that “leftists” have unfairly rewritten history to paint Hitler as right wing, based in part on the fact that the Nazi party had the word “socialist” in its name.

Perhaps ironically, that article opens with a tidbit of literally rewritten history, misattributing a quote by Nazi party member Gregor Strasser to Adolf Hitler: “We are Socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system!”

Hitler never wrote nor uttered these words. Instead, these are the words of early Nazi party official Gregor Strasser, printed in a 1926 pamphlet titled Thoughts about the Tasks of the Future. That pamphlet, as we will discuss in detail below, attempted to appeal to ultranationalist movements on both the left and the right at a time when the Nazis were a fringe political party seeking to carve out as big a part of the German electorate as possible [..]”

“I believe Nazisim [sic] and Fascism to have far more in common with socialism than conservatism,” wrote the blogger Iain Dale. “The clue is the phrase ‘National Socialism’.” On which basis, the German Democratic Republic was presumably a flourishing democracy.

According to the Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan, “Almost everyone in those days accepted that Fascism had emerged from the revolutionary left.” Which is true, so long as you ignore what happened to Hitler’s old comrades during the Night of the Long Knives.

Anyone who has studied Hitler’s rise to power knows he was no socialist. He was an opportunist, even a political schizophrenic. Which served him well, because in a Weimar Republic struggling – and failing catastrophically – to come to terms with military humiliation, a crisis of national identity and an economic implosion, ideology was a moveable feast. Indeed, it was so moveable, it opened the door to Hitler’s rise to power.”

“[..] But does it matter? Yes, it does, actually. Hitler wasn’t a socialist, nor was he a conservative. He was a political mutation. And to try to place him anywhere on the conventional political spectrum is not just to abuse history but to play a dangerous game with the future”

“[..] Dan [MEP Hannan] says that the National Socialists were collectivists and self-identified socialists (“the clue is in the name”). I argue that Hitler was in fact a racist who used the language of socialism because it was useful. Yes, Goebbels wanted to eliminate both Bolshevism and capitalism from Russia. But that’s because he believed both were Jewish. He may well have been anticapitalist, but that does not necessarily mean that his concept of socialism sits within the Marxist tradition.

Rather, consider this dialogue between Hitler and the Strasser brothers in 1930 – when the Nazis were approaching the margins of power. Otto and Gregor Strasser represented the wing of Nazism that certainly did self-define as socialist. The Strasserites went so far as to demand the nationalisation of industry and even cooperation with the Soviet Union. If Hitler was a socialist then we’d expect the men to have flourished in his government. Instead, Otto was purged in 1930 and Gregor died along with the remnants of their ideology in the Night of the Long Knives in 1934 [..]”

To claim that Hitler’s Nazis were “socialist” just because they included that word in their party‘s name is, quite frankly, retarded, or in today’s lingo: ‘fake-news,’ or more accurately in this case: fake-history, just as fake as the claim that the Yanks won WWII.

“So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained.”
~ Robert E. Lee

Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson were both staunch abolitionists.

Stonewall never owned a slave, and Robert E Lee only once inherited some, as a matter of law, from a deceased relative.

He immediately freed them and paid for their education out of his own pocket.

While on the other hand:

Ulysses S Grant, the Union commanding general,owned slaves all through the war, and only freed them when slavery was abolished. He gave them nothing,just turned them loose.

A saw a meme yesterday with a picture of the Pyramids in Egypt saying “when will they destroy those vile symbols of slavery”.

Not to detract from your points (not an American so ignorant of the finer nuances of the civil war debated here) and funny meme, Uncle Bob, but latest scholarship indicates that slavery wasn’t used to build the pyramids. Current archaeological evidence points to the workers being highly skilled, very well fed and very well paid for their work.

Why am I not surprised that there is public outrage about people walking with torches yelling ‘blood and soil’ for a damned statue?
Why am I not surprised that there is public outrage about ‘white supremacy’, ‘Republicans’, and the like?
Why am I not surprised that there is total silence when neonazi’s are walking with torches, singing nationalistic songs, honouring their former leader Stepan Bandera, in Kiev, Ukraine? These people are even in the government.

Why am I not surprised, that during the G20 in Germany, thousands of leftist activists have battled with the police and left for millions of damage?
Why am I not surprised that this was kind of hushed away, being described as ‘protesters’ who wanted to ‘raise a voice’ and ‘make their concerns visible’?

Why am I not surprised, that when a muslim extremist plows down ‘kafirs’ with a car or a truck (happened several times in Europe), the public voice immediately starts with ‘it has nothing to do with islam’, ‘we should be careful that this will not lead to islamophobia’, ‘it was a lone wolf’, ‘we should stick together’ and we end up singing John Lennon songs?

There is a hand behind this. And far, far away I seem to understand that this hand belongs to George Soros (or Georgyi Schwarz, that is his real name).

There seems little doubt that he and his supporters “do” fund some of these groups (like they did in Ukraine as well). But what does surprise me,is that in such a litigious society as the US is. That those on the right haven’t started law suits against these groups. They themselves get sued regularly. There is one filed the other day from two people hurt by the car. Claiming the protest organizers were responsible. It would seem to me that the BLM and Anifa groups could be sued for their actions as well.File a few dozen lawsuits over the actions of these groups. And over the police not acting to prevent violence. Bankrupt them with lawsuits. A few million in damage suits. And they’d think twice before doing that again. And hit the Democrat politicians that encouraged the violence with personal damage and incitement lawsuits.Bankrupt the city and state with those suits.When in Rome “do as the Romans”,so they say. When in the US file lawsuits.

To me what is most important is that Kessler had a permit for the rally.
The whole “ties to” meme can lead into the woods really quickly.
Let’s stick to what people actually do.
If Kessler exchanges ideas or plans for the rally with members of various groups, is that a crime?
I don’t think so.
Communications only become a crime if criminal acts are discussed and planned, such as an attack on Antifa protesters.
I bet, actually, that the Antifa etc. exchanged communications in which they discussed actions they would take, which are actually provocative and criminal in nature. Actions like throwing rocks and macing.
Not actions like standing on a podium and saying “Yay, white nationalists!@!”
Katherine

Quite a lot of disinformation in this post, IMHO.
First “Donald Trump who won the presidency mainly from White nationalists’ support”
What? If a Communist voted for Hillary, would that make Hillary a Communist? I don’t think exit polls support this statement.
The United group had a permit for their rally.
Certain C’ville politicians revoked the permit making arguments as to the contents of the speech assumed to be uttered there
The ACLU went to court to defend the United group’s right to hold their rally.
A federal judge agreed that the revocation was on the basis of the content of prev. speech of the rally organizers, and reinstated the permit.
Per the rally organizer, the C’ville police did not show up to maintain separation between the United group and the so-called antifa (or, as trump called them, alt-left, and quite rightly, IMO) protesters. Only some state police s howed up, but not enough to barricade the permitted rally area.
The Antifa groups created obstacles for the permitted rally to get to their permitted place to rally.
Scuffles and broke out and the Antifa people sprayed mace at teh permitted group.
The beginning of the permitted rally was scheduled for noon.
At 11:30, the permit was rescinded again, by C’ville authorities or perhaps McAuliffe, a Dem Party operative. Are you seeing how this is playing out?
No police force was maintianing a separation between the groups or barricading the permitted rally to prevent contact by Antifa groups.
It looks to me like the riots that ensured after the election and the inauguration.
It looks to me like the obstructionism that attended Trump’s rallies in summer 2016—applauded by the left. That was for me the turning point. I am not a Trump supporter, but this double standard on free speech and right of assembly is a very dangerous trend. There is also “fascism” of the left.
And frankly, I don’t see why the statue of Lee has to be removed in the first place.
To me this is different from Confederate flags flying over the SC state house.
WE have memorials to all kinds of people and events that history has now come to view in a different way. But revisionism generally is not black/white. It is or should be (IMO) shades of gray. The people who made history should not be thrown on the garbage heap, even as their role is constantly reassessed. That’s my take.
Just leave Lee where he was, and none of this would have happened.
Add a statue of Nat Turner or Harriet Tubman instead of dump Lee.

In fact both sides have been violent, but when that is addressed (Trump), everybody is angry on him. That the police didn’t interfere, is suspicious.

The whole emotional aftermath reminds me of the aftermath following the mass shooting on Columbine high school, 1999.
In full emotion all kinds of accusations were thrown, blaming ‘violent games’, ‘lack of gun control’ and above all rocker Marilyn Manson of which both shooters were fans.
Michael Moore made a excellent documentary about it (‘Bowling for Columbine’). In this documentary he had a short interview with Marilyn Manson, who may look scary, but is actually a quiet and quite intelligent man: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeQ4HWhPEdA
(Especially his answer on the last question is brilliant).

PCR also mentions ‘gender sterotypes’ in his article. I’m getting really tired of such discussions.
I used to joke about genders being ‘male/female/both/neither/have to find out yet/Conchita Wurst’.
In this respect, see here an amusing MP addressing all gender types in the German Parliament during a debate about ‘diversity’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8LIHZDfmFM

Maybe it is still to come, while each and every mayhem in the West is secretely steered by the insidious hand of Vlad ;-)

Soros and silver lining… I don’t know.
George, if you are reading here: you can do it. Brzezinski suceeded, and also McCain is well under way. You can do it too.
Somewhere deep and hot down, a special place is reserved for you.

This article gives Trump far too much credit for things he has promised but not done. Yes, there are extremists on both sides. One side wants to settle things with guns, the other with laws, mostly. And both sides have simple minded vitriol spewing idiots. Education is the bedrock of democracy, and our education was eroded away a long time ago.

That advert is an interesting catch by zerohedge, makes one wonder how extensive this hire a crowd phenomenon is. But being zerohedge, perhaps they didn’t notice the difference between Charlotte, nc and Charlottesville, va.

The peaceful protests work in the ad was labeled optional, further making it likely the job they were hiring for was not related to the Charlottesville protests.

The Charlottesville terrorist attack car, 2010 Dodge Challenger, license in the photos is Ohio GVF1111. The car registered with that # is to James Alex Fields, Jr, 20, and it had a sun/moon roof, but the attack car did not. And Fields was not driving it. The driver as seen through the windshield looks like James G Field, 32, US infantry Veteran. In the crash at least the driver’s airbag should have deployed, but it didn’t. Therefore, that car had to have been specially prepared for Veteran Field, with a fake license plate for kid Fields.

Then the cops allowed Vet. Field to slip away – because he was working for the deep state, and they blamed and arrested kid Fields – a perfect lone-wolf patsy. See 82 221 129 208/baaaasepaagec9.html

“Following the Charlottesville clashes, some American cities rushed to remove Confederate-era monuments. According to Brian Becker, these statues commemorate people who took up arms against the US government in defense on slavery.

“These have been longstanding symbols of white supremacy and the defense of Jim Crow and Apartheid in America,” he told RT.

“This would be like having a monument in Russia to Nazi Germany – that is what this means. These are the people who took up arms against the US government in defense of the system of slavery. Black people should not be forced to bow and walk in front of these monuments that are testimonials and celebration of their enslavement,” Becker continued.

“The Washington Monument, the [Thomas] Jefferson Memorial, which are also monuments of slaveholders – that is not the point – these monuments have been built not as a national historical thing – it is about the white supremacy movement erecting them at the times in American history in the 1890’s and in the early 1920’s and right before that, when there was an effort to push back against black freedom,” he said.”

When commenting on the Charlottesville violence, Becker says, Trump was inspired by his “real feelings.”

“Look at what happened yesterday – he was reading. He had to read a prepared statement. Somebody else wrote it for him because he was under so much pressure,” he told RT.

“On Saturday when the young woman was killed, and so many were injured as a consequence of neo-Nazi fascist violence Trump couldn’t bring himself to say anything against them. So finally the pressure mounted and he read a prepared statement, and then he did his deed,” Becker continued.

“But what we saw today was the real Donald Trump, and he is really angry at the left. The people who came out and provided protection and security from this organization,” said analyst.”

Very solid point here by Becker, though unfortunately way too brief, on the role confederate monuments play in the usa in their past role of reinforcing the jim crow apartheid and perpetuating confederate propaganda.

FFS, the propagandists even erected monuments to the confederates in states that were not involved and didn’t even exist at the time of the civil war.

“The state of Montana did not participate in the US civil war. Montana didn’t become a state until decades later, in 1889, and even then it was about as far north of the Mason-Dixon line as states get. Although somebody in the Montana territory probably traveled south to fight on the side of the Confederacy, the war is only a part of this region’s history indirectly, in the same way as, say, the Boston Tea Party. There’s no statue of Sam Adams in Helena. Yet there is a memorial to Confederate soldiers, given to the city by The Daughters of the Confederacy in 1915.

In a letter to city commissioners, eight members of the state legislature’s American Indian Caucus recently asked that the fountain be removed. Helena Mayor Jim Smith opposes this idea. In his own letter, reported by Holly Michels1 in the Helena Independent-Record, he writes, “Fundamentally, I believe we ought to be very careful before we start obliterating history. That is what totalitarian regimes do.”

Let’s talk about what constitutes history, then. The notion that statues and fountains somehow stand between us and the “obliteration” of history is fatuous. I defy you to show me someone who only knows about the Civil War from a statue. And what information about history does the fountain in Hill Park convey? If you did not know anything about the past, all this monument would tell you is that there once existed a group called The Daughters of the Confederacy, and it dedicated a fountain in 1915.

That fountain is less a piece of history than a monument to one group’s understanding of it. The distinction is important. The D of the C built this monument 50 years after the Civil War ended. That’s an astonishingly short time, like erecting a monument to the Wehrmacht in Paris in 1995. But it is still two generations after the Confederacy ceased to exist, and the fountain cannot meaningfully be called a relic of Civil War history. Instead, it is a monument to the City of Helena’s endorsement of the Daughters of the Confederacy in 1915.

Many historians, including Princeton professor and Pulitzer Prize winner James McPherson, consider the Daughters of the Confederacy a stalking horse for white supremacy. It’s not inconceivable that some of the Daughters are lineal descendants of Confederates who only want to memorialize their ancestors, but that argument breaks down in Montana. The further we get, geographically and chronologically, from the Confederacy itself, the more structures like this fountain become monuments to the idea and not the history.

That idea is repugnant. Confederate soldiers fought a war of treason against the United States in defense of slavery. There are a lot of good reasons to study that war and remember it, to literally memorialize the history. But there are only two reasons to memorialize the ideas: either you like the notion of exploiting and disenfranchising black people by force, or you like the notion of betraying the United States and killing its citizens.

There is a third reason, of course: you recognize that Confederate monuments have some vague appeal to disgruntled white people, and you’re pandering. I hope that’s what Mayor Smith is up to. I would hate to think he is a slavemonger or seditionist. He has probably just performed the same calculus the city fathers did in 1915. Most of Helena is white, and saying yes to some cracker nonsense will alienate fewer voters than saying no. The next step in this process, probably, is to prove him wrong.”

I posted the latter extensively​ because I think the author really nails the issue of these confederate propaganda memorials and the issues surrounding them very, very well. This is missing in Robert’s article and in much of the pro-rated nonsense posted here defending the confederate propaganda here.

Sitemap

Saker Android App

An Android App has been developed by one of our supporters. It is available for download and install by clicking on the Google Play Store Badge above.

All the original content published on this blog is licensed by Saker Analytics, LLC under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0). For permission to re-publish or otherwise use non-original or non-licensed content, please consult the respective source of the content.